CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
24
My body & My Choice Protect Me from Myself
Debate Score:47
Arguments:66
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 My body & My Choice (19)
 
 Protect Me from Myself (20)

Debate Creator

marcusmoon(581) pic



Should people own our own meat?


Should people be allowed to decide what we do to our own bodies?  Does any government have a legitimate right to control abortion, drug legalization, assisted suicide, experimental cancer treatments that have not been approved by the FDA, herbal supplements, sodas over 16 oz in New York, etc.?

Regardless of your position on it, this is where left and right can agree.

My body & My Choice

Side Score: 23
VS.

Protect Me from Myself

Side Score: 24
2 points

Each life chooses for itself. You cannot live their lives for them and likewise you should not mandate their destiny.

Side: My body & My Choice
Mingiwuwu(1785) Disputed
2 points

What about those whose destiny is to mandate?

Side: Protect Me from Myself
Grenache(6103) Clarified
1 point

Pound on

.............................................................

Side: My body & My Choice

Should people be allowed to decide what we do to our own bodies?

For the most part. The government should only regulate that foods and drinks sold in public institutions are not poisonous, meaning they would quickly kill you with just a few or less intakes. They shouldn't be able to regulate whether I eat glue, do crack, sniff paint, drink energy drinks, or gorge myself with marijuana growing in the wild that I chose to ingest.

Does any government have a legitimate right to control abortion

It does. It also has the right to not control it.

drug legalization

Depends. I should have the right to ingest whatever I can get my hands on without prosecution. They, the government, should have the right to regulate drugs that are within a certain class at least to the point that pharmacies are not required to sell extreme drugs to someone without a prescription. If I find extreme drugs on the street, that's my problem. Not the governments'.

Selling to minors should be illegal without a prescription. Selling most things to an adult on the street should not be illegal. There is a line here due to the fact that someone could lace something, and sell it to you with the intent to kill you. It could be debated on rules.

assisted suicide

I have no problem with it if it were done by a professional. In other words, your neighbor doesn't need to assist you with poisoning yourself intentionally. Otherwise murderers could simply say that was what they were doing. You asked them for assistance. Then you could never prove a real murder.

experimental cancer treatments that have not been approved by the FDA

Should be legal.

herbal supplements, sodas over 16 oz in New York, etc.?

No government involvement. What are we 5? It's not government's job to wipe my ass. They can barely wipe their own.

Side: My body & My Choice
2 points

You want to kill yourself that’s fine with me , abuse yourself with drugs , alcohol, cigarettes ? That’s ok by me once it’s your choice .

We are creating “Mammy states” where the government attempts to interfere and control every part of our lives , I’ve zero right to tell you or others what to do with your body , I should have the choice to do with mine as I will once it does not bring physical damage or danger to others

Side: My body & My Choice
2 points

Hello m:

I dunno WHY people say the first job of government is to protect its people, when the presidential OATH of office says NOTHING about protecting people, and EVERYTHING about defending the Constitution..

If we're NOT free to DO with our bodies what we CHOOSE to do, we're not free at all..

excon

Side: My body & My Choice
2 points

An excellent argument against illegal migration.*

Side: Protect Me from Myself
Logically(192) Disputed
1 point

People don't want to be truly free, that's called anarchy. If you want to be truly free, you're against the FDA regulating food processing companies by restricting the amount of harmful material allowed in the food you buy. If you want to be truly free, you're against any form of a police body and any form of law that restricts any aspect of your life; which is every single law that exists. If you want to be truly free, you disagree with any sort of incarceration system as it promotes control over an entity other than yourself, therefore you aren't free. Criminals incarcerated don't experience freedom, yet they live in the almighty United States of America?

The plain truth is you don't want to be truly free, you want to feel truly free. You want to be babied into thinking wholeheartedly that you have control over your life when you merely walk a series of predetermined paths designed by those smarter and wiser than you that are likely to cause you the least amount of negative effects. For those crying "freedom", dystopia is your utopia.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
Gore(141) Disputed
1 point

This is mindless semantics. You could then say you should be free to have a choice of non-poisoned foods, and that you "aren't truely free" unless you have non-poisoned food choices. You are a "non-free" slave trapped by dangerous foods everywhere.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Hi, Excon.

I agree, in principle.

However, there are questions about responsibilities to consider, as well.

Is there anybody who could defensibly claim a property right to another person's safety? What about children who are dependent on their parents, for example?

People win wrongful death suits all the time, generally based upon this exact premise. Some idiot killed daddy or wifey, and now the plaintiff is deprived of the monetary support he or she would have received. Can one be legally liable for one's own wrongful death?

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

No one has a right to force to give birth, no one has right to decide what treatments I need, no one has right to decide what I have to do with my life. All of us are free in our choice. But our freedom ends where someone's freedom begins, so, sometimes we have to be more careful with our desires. Humanity is a big collective, such as https://essayvikings.com/custom-essays, so we have to listen to each other.

Side: My body & My Choice
2 points

Who gives you these "rights" Kate? You? God? Who?

Does a woman have the right to keep her legs closed or does government have the right to close them for her? Can Bernie Sanders show up to close legs in order to afford us this Socialist utopia?

Does the baby have rights? And if no, why not? We have animal rights activist mad that someone kills a deer because of the deer's "rights". We have leftist mad if you wag your finger at an illegal alien because of their "rights". Why does the deer and the illegal alien have more rights than a young American human being?

I can say no one has the right to shove homophobic, anti atheist, anti Christian, anti feminist third world migrants down out throat. I can say no one has the right to take our guns, but so what? Who says? Based on what? Darwinian Theory? It says that if third world migrants come in and destroy your country or you are stupid enough to not defend yourself, you die. It says that if you are a woman and get raped or killed, well, you should have been born bigger, faster or stronger. No rights there. It doesn't look like Darwinism or naturalism cares about rights. Rights, if they exist at all, came from somewhere else, otherwise it's a free for all, and the weak simply "deserve to die" per survival of the fittest, including you, me or anyone else.

Do I have the right to make someone finish giving birth in mid flight while the head of the baby is sticking out of the womb? How about a 9 month old baby? Can you decline to have it? Could your own mother decline to have you at 7 months?

Where do you get "rights"? From the Constitution. You know. That piece of paper that leftists want to trash. Without it, you have no rights. And if that "right" isn't in it, you can claim it's a right, but is it? What guarantees a right without the Constitution? Nothing. You'd think a female would protect the Constitution with her life, especially seeing that without it, women don't even have the right to vote...

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
0 points

Bronto,

Some cogent observations. Thanks.

The question of where rights derive from is a critical one. I tend not to buy into the theistic "...endowed by our Creator..."origin story of rights, so where does that leave us?

Other than with a horde of snowflakes on college campuses screaming about their rights from within their safe spaces, I mean.

It doesn't look like Darwinism or naturalism cares about rights. Rights, if they exist at all, came from somewhere else, otherwise it's a free for all, and the weak simply "deserve to die" per survival of the fittest, including you, me or anyone else.

This leaves us with Captain Jack Sparrow's two laws:

What I can do.

What I cannot do.

The problem is that we could be left with the anarchy Logical mentioned, without something to direct traffic.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Kate,

All of us are free in our choice. But our freedom ends where someone's freedom begins, so, sometimes we have to be more careful with our desires.

Thanks for the basic philosophy.

So does this mean you are against heroin being illegal?

I mean, how would this play out practically in modern life?

How does this fit with your concept of government, or where you stand on the security/safety versus liberty question?

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

Consent should be informed. Otherwise, do with your body what you will.

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

SexyJ,

Consent should be informed.

That is a pertinent caveat. Well played!

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

If I don't consent, and Progressives force me to abide by tyrannical ideology, is it rape?

Side: Protect Me from Myself
1 point

First I'll note that I live in New Zealand, where we have a national health system funded by taxpayers, and I don't want to pay for other people being stupid, but I'll pretend I'm in the US - I understand people pretty much have to pay for their own healthcare there?

I might support a national health system in the US, and if that came into existence I would have to answer no to the question... Unless they made it so you had to pay for your own treatment if it was for something that was your fault, like overdosing on drugs.

I don't want to talk about abortion here, because that's a whole different debate about whether fetuses are just part of a woman's body or not. (I do however think abortion should be legal)

For everything else I'll just say yes, because it doesn't seem like you'd be causing any sort of damage to anybody else (at least not any damage punishable in the eyes of the law). I've never really had a problem with the stupid crap people want to do to themselves, so long as it doesn't affect me.

I might not be okay with really bad drugs being illegal if it means I'll see junkies all over town. They could probably just make laws against being on certain drugs in certain public places though.

Also, children shouldn't be allowed to do drugs and whatnot. I think they can't make their own decisions yet.

I don't know if the left and right can agree on this. Over here there's barely any difference between political parties, so nobody really cares about left and right, and I don't know enough to talk american politics. I try to avoid heavily political discussions here.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Mack,

How very moderate of you! You tend toward yes some, and toward no some.

So what is the principle you use to form your answer to the question of whether we should own ourselves?

In those instances when we do not get to do whatever we want to our bodies, who does own us?

Our families?

The government?

Our employers?

Over here there's barely any difference between political parties, so nobody really cares about left and right, and I don't know enough to talk american politics. I try to avoid heavily political discussions here.

The big split between parties here is only about 20 years old here. Until then, it was just a few issues that caused the distinction between the parties. Most folks agreed about basic principles.

I think what has caused the polarization in American politics is that the more left leaning party moved farther left.

The right leaning party kind of spread out and filled in the gap on the political spectrum. Now, even the more conservative folks disagree with each other.

During all the political migration, a lot of the agreement about principles has dissipated. That is what I am trying to get to with this question: basic principles.

Side: My body & My Choice
Mack(536) Clarified
1 point

My principle is just, if it doesn't hurt anybody else in a way the law recognizes it is fine. By that I mean if you risk financially or physically (or something like that) harming someone because of what you do to yourself it shouldn't be allowed. I.e, It doesn't matter if people are sad that you killed yourself, but it does matter if you land on someone else's car.

In instances where you shouldn't be able to choose, you still own your body, you just can't do certain things with it. An analogy is this: You own your car, even though you are not allowed to go over the speed limit, in the same way, you own your body, even though you are not allowed to run around naked in the street.

I hope that answers you question.

Side: My body & My Choice
FungusOfHam(3) Disputed
1 point

What is different is this new generation is post Soros' takeover of every major megaphone in the West, from TV, to Hollywood, to riots and marches, to academia itself. His fingerprints are on everything. Hungary has actually made he himself illegal.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
1 point

Should people be allowed to decide what we do to our own bodies?

Yes. The principles of private property start with ones body. What one does with their own body is their own business when there is no hazard to others. In most cases, they should also suffer the consequences of their actions without the forced support of tax payers. However, provided this is correct, there is still plenty of debate to be had on the topics your presented. Many of the topics that appear to come down to this principle are not so cut and dry. Prostitution for example, should properly be up to the person selling their services. But there is so much more that goes into it then that. Many (most) prostitutes are groomed into the position or forced into the position where they then acquire a protective Stockholm Syndrome for their slave master pimp who feeds them on a steady diet of forced drug use and backhands. It's not cut and dry.

Does any government have a legitimate right to control abortion

The argument against abortion still allows for a person to decide what to do with their own body in the absence of hazard to others. Abortion poses a hazard to another. Your body, your choice. But the child inside you with distinct DNA is not your body. Which is why a there are laws concerning fetal homicide, such as a DUI manslaughter where the only death is the fetus.

drug legalization

There are a number of illegal drugs that are harmless when used properly. Very often, these drugs are not used in a way that is non-hazardous to others. There are also drugs that, by the nature of their effect, cause a person to be hazardous to others. For example, there is no safe meth head and no safe way to manufacture it.

assisted suicide

While one can appreciate a person’s right to end their own life, and even to acquire assistance to this end, there are other issues at hand that would make this a difficult legal framework when not banned altogether. There is money to be had in expediting death, especially concerning inheritance. There would have to be extensive measures taken to ensure that the suicide is truly one of choice, especially for elderly patients. There is also the issue of who does the assisting. The institution of medicine has its foundations in the hypocritic oath. The principles upon which one bases their professional actions shouldn’t be contradicted too readily. As such, a suicide assist would likely need to be done by a professional other than a doctor. A proposition that likely has it’s own host of issues.

experimental cancer treatments that have not been approved by the FDA

The only issue here is to ensure a means to reduce deadly quackery. There is a bit of it already.

herbal supplements

Um…Is this an issue?

Even adhering to the principle that one owns their own body, there are plenty of ways for the government to control what you do with it. For example, I know of state laws concerning drugs that are pretty much the same as other states where ever you go. But there is no crime in doing drugs. If you are in your own house and you snort coke, and then the cops come for whatever reason, you are not in trouble for being high on coke. You are only in trouble if there is any coke or paraphernalia left. You can legally ingest whatever crazy chemical you want, you just can’t sell or possess it. In most cases, being high is not legally sufficient to show that you were previously in possession. Typically, drug users don’t simply stay home. They drive somewhere or do something else indicative of an altered state of mind. But a government can recognize that your body is your property and still make illegal the things you wish to put in your body without technically contradicting this principle.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Amarel,

You have some solid attention to detail.

What one does with their own body is their own business when there is no hazard to others. In most cases, they should also suffer the consequences of their actions without the forced support of tax payers.

I agree with you completely, but the whole "no hazard to others" is where it get complex.

Abortion poses a hazard to another. Your body, your choice. But the child inside you with distinct DNA is not your body. Which is why a there are laws concerning fetal homicide

This is the perfect example of the complexity I am talking about. We all are intricately entwined with each other, and there are interdependencies that mean what we do to ourselves will likely affect others, though not with the same immediacy as abortion, or drug use or suicide by a pregnant mother.

When we do something hazardous, we put those who depend on us in harm's way as well.

This does NOT mean that I think the answer is law or any other authoritarian intervention. That just makes things worse because people drop personal responsibility in the lap of the authorities.

They blame the government for not applying mental health-based gun restrictions when a vet with PTSD commits suicide, or for not getting drugs off the street, or for not ...on and on and on.

I think it is irresponsible for parents of minor children to ride motorcycles, or skydive, or do heroin, but I don't think laws against these particular activities are likely to make people into more responsible parents.

It is the same with everything else.

We can only develop into fully responsible people if we start by being fully responsible for our own bodies and what we do to and with our own meat.

This brings us back around to your point that people "should also suffer the consequences of their actions."

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

This is a very tough decision because while I do believe in my body my choice in most instances I think it's going to depend entirely on circumstances.

In examples of harmful drugs. What got them into them? Where they given a prescription by a doctor and are now addicted to, like Opiods? They do need help and maybe they should be taken care of. They came in for pain relief and were instead given a government sanctified gateway to drug abuse.

In the event of abortion. I really only believe the woman should have the choice up until the first trimester, after that she should be heavily persuaded to put the baby up for adoption and in the event doctors are concerned about her self-harming herself or the unborn child I would prefer the child be removed from her and put in an incubator. It's still a concern but the chance of the child living is much higher. I also can't 100% say that any woman should be forced to give birth since we don't always know the circumstance or the reason and short of chaining her in a room there is no way we could ever guarantee that she wouldn't choose methods that puts her and the child at greater risk.

Assisted Suicide. So long as there is absolutely zero chance of recovering and the quality of life is abysmal, then yes I agree with assisted suicide. No one should be forced to take medications to keep them alive if their body and mind are ready to die. It is essentially torturing them so family members don't have to say goodbye.

For most of these there isn't a black and white solution.

Side: My body & My Choice

The government has proven time and time again that they are experts on nothing but corruption. Why would I want evil, greedy clowns running my life any more than necessary? Do tell.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Bronto,

The government has proven time and time again that they are experts on nothing but corruption.

That is neither fair nor true and you know it!

The government has also consistently demonstrated that it is incompetent, inefficient, meddlesome, and inexcusably expensive.

Why would I want evil, greedy, (incompetent, inefficient, meddlesome, and inexcusably expensive) clowns running my life any more than necessary?

See? Including the whole truth strengthens your point.

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

Bronto,

The government has proven time and time again that they are experts on nothing but corruption.

That is neither fair nor true and you know it!

The government has also consistently demonstrated that it is incompetent, inefficient, meddlesome, and inexcusably expensive.

They walk in middle class, and walk out multi millionaires

I live in this place called Reality Land. Come join me. The government has also made many, many false flag events. And that's just the ones they later admitted.

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

Yes people should have the right to do as they wish with their own body. That said, for example in the case of abortion (particularly late term) it is not clear that it is merely their own body. A woman that is pregnant with a baby boy does not have twenty fingers and a penis. Moreover, that baby is independently conscious and alive and thus to abort it is to infringe upon the child's right to it's own body. This said, I do support abortion rights up to around 3-4 months.

As for drug legalization and large sodas, it makes sense to allow people to harm themselves as long as they do not harm others. If their drug use leads them to harm others, then this can be pursued as a separate crime.

Experimental cancer treatments and herbal supplements are acceptable as long as no fraudulent claims are made and all the risks and side effects are made apparent to the user.

As for assisted suicide, there would need to be safeguards against abuse; "They wanted me to kill them, honest!" However in principle I have no objection to people making the decision to end their own life when in irredeemable circumstances. Of course, attempts to talk them out of it should be made if/when the person's situation can improve.

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

This is not where the left and right can agree. Left wing supports the government protecting people from themselves whereas the right wing is a psychopathic ideology.

I lean more to the left so for me, it's a case-by-case thing. I support protecting the suicidal from themselves by forced rehabilitation if someone attempts it as well as outlawing euthanasia for at least 10 months into a guaranteed death state (or however long is calculated to be long enough to be sure it's not a burst of emotions forcing the person to want to die).

Side: Protect Me from Myself
1 point

1)How is flooding the country with migrants who join gangs and practice jihadism "the government protecting us from ourselves"?

2)Who knows how to protect you better, you or the government? If it's the government, I definitely wouldn't want to be you. In my case, it's ME.

Side: My body & My Choice
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Who knows how to protect you better, you or the government? If it's the government, I definitely wouldn't want to be you. In my case, it's ME.

So is your issue just about competence to keep you safe?

What if the government actually did know better than you how to keep you safe? Would you still base your answer on safety?

What about liberty for its own sake?

Side: My body & My Choice
Mingiwuwu(1785) Disputed
0 points

Whether you are right wing or left wing, you agree with my disagreement to the debate description's closing line. :)

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Disputed
1 point

This is not where the left and right can agree. Left wing supports the government protecting people from themselves...

There are many on the right who are all about protecting people from themselves. Look at how often the anti-drug laws are supported by people on the right. Don't forget, Reagan instituted the "War on Drugs."

Side: My body & My Choice
Mingiwuwu(1785) Disputed
1 point

That form of Conservatism is simply not the true Right Wing. It involves taxing to fund the war etc etc. That's actually a left-wing form of Conservatism but since politics is polarised, they won't admit it.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
Gore(141) Disputed
1 point

There's a difference between protecting people from drugs which can kill or impair you biologically and protecting people from speech, wrong thoughts, and being caught by the police for crimes you committed.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Ming,

What is your basic philosophy about who owns your body and gets to make decisions about what happens to it?

- Should the government be allowed to force someone to accept medical treatment? Why?

- Should the government be allowed to regulate people's caloric intake to ensure they are protected from obesity? Why?

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not you can get a tattoo? Why?

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not you can take some non-lethal, non-addictive drug, like LSD? Why?

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not a 50-year-old diabetic woman can get pregnant if there is a high risk of the mother dying? Why?

- Should the government be allowed to outlaw free-climbing (rock-climbing without ropes) or bungee jumping because it is too dangerous? Why?

Side: My body & My Choice
1 point

- Should the government be allowed to force someone to accept medical treatment? Why?

yes, depends but if it's necessary yes.

- Should the government be allowed to regulate people's caloric intake to ensure they are protected from obesity? Why?

Yes, not by sugar tax. UK and other nations doing that are stupid and only taxing soda drinks... Lol... That method hurts the poor more, especially manual labour workers who need a lot of glucose drinks to get through the day.

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not you can get a tattoo? Why?

Yes, if you get a tattoo that is considered treason to the culture or too offensive to the norm, it should be voted as illegal. I don't support unfettered freedom of speech, I am not a hypocrite.

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not you can take some non-lethal, non-addictive drug, like LSD? Why?

Non-lethal in one take is firstly not non-lethal over a series of takes that perpetually addict you to the drug more and more and deteriorate you to a broken state of mind and health. It should depend on the drug. Weed? That was only outlawed because Hemp manufacturers were a threat in the clothing and fabric industry to nylon, which was new at the time, so they outlawed weed to justify raiding Hemp farms which delayed and hurt their production heavily and is why nylon clothes became mainstream as did cotton and Hemp never quite made it back mainstream in anything other than baskets and rope.

It depends on the drug is the answer. This is also included as a philosophy behind the differing status of an over-the-counter drug and a prescription-only drug.

- Should the government be allowed to decide whether or not a 50-year-old diabetic woman can get pregnant if there is a high risk of the mother dying? Why?

This, I would say, depends on what most believe. Put it up to a vote/referendum and see if the results lead heavily one way or not.

- Should the government be allowed to outlaw free-climbing (rock-climbing without ropes) or bungee jumping because it is too dangerous? Why?

I believe no, the reason is that, well, I just think that the type of people who do that are thrill-seeking and want to live fast die young... So let them do the latter. It's literally their ethos.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Disputed
0 points

This is not where the left and right can agree. Left wing supports the government protecting people from themselves whereas the right wing is a psychopathic ideology.

Look for yourself. There are leftists and right wingers agreeing with each other on both sides of this debate.

Side: My body & My Choice
Mingiwuwu(1785) Disputed
1 point

Left wingers who agree to the other side are just confused right wingers. Mack said the same thing as I did but said he preferred the other side overall which is strange.

Side: Protect Me from Myself

The government has the right to keep us safe. That’s why we have these laws.

Side: Protect Me from Myself

Less of a right and more of an obligation. Regardless, yeah. The government is here to protect us, the population. In return, we give them tax money and we continue to live here.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

American B,

The government has the right to keep us safe. That’s why we have these laws.

From what principle does this right derive?

When there is a conflict between safety and freedom, why should safety prevail?

Side: My body & My Choice

That’s a good question.

A good example of this is guns. There are people who want guns, and there are people who dont. The government has to figure this out and either let us keep our freedom, or give us a false sense of security.

Now, in the cases listed, I believe that there should be government control over because they not only help keep us safe, but in some cases, they keep us alive.

Side: Protect Me from Myself

I do believe the government has control over our bodies in most circumstances. This is because of the side I'm on, namely "Protect Me from Myself". We usually don't make the correct choices. For example, more than 64,000 Americans died of drug abuse according to https://www.drugabuse.gov. People seem to continually assume that the government views their citizens as children who cannot be trusted to make their own choices, but the truth is that the government is supposed to protect their population.

Side: Protect Me from Myself
marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

MadGad,

the government is supposed to protect their population.

So, how would you trace the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry from ourselves back to a governmental framework, like what is laid out in the Preamble to the US Constitution, for example?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Side: My body & My Choice
themadgadfly(897) Clarified
2 points

So, how would you trace the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry from ourselves back to a governmental framework

Where it states "We the People of the United States,..., promote the general Welfare" part. This is written in a way for the government to be able to follow, so I believe that that part of the Preamble gives the responsibility of protecting the population to the government.

Side: My body & My Choice